Big soccer summer here. The US recently qualified for the semifinal round of CONCACAF (North American and Carribbean) qualifying for the 2006 World Cup. They beat Grenada 3-0 and 3-2. The next round, they will play two games each against El Salvador, Jamaica and Panama.
I prefer CONCACAF's method of qualification over Europe's. There, they have only one round. Most groups include one powerhouse, one decent team, two midlevel teams, one or two weak teams and one or two minnow. For example, one current European group includes: Spain, Belgium, Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina (security nightmare when those two play), Lithuania and San Marino. So Spain might qualify only having to play one really decent team, who they don't even necessarily have to beat.
To qualify from North America, you will automatically have to go through the continent's best teams. If the US qualifies for CONCACAF's final round, they will almost certainly play teams like Mexico and Costa Rica as well as rematches against El Salvador or Jamaica. The weakest opponent will probably be a team like Canada or Honduras, who are a lot stronger than San Marino or Andorra.
I think this system does a better job to ensure that the 3-4 best teams in North America go to the World Cup. It would be a lot easier if the US could qualify without having to have Mexico, but that's not how it works here. It's just as well because US-Mexico matches are hard fought affairs between two countries and two sets of fans who really dislike each other. It's better preparation for the World Cup to play World Cup calibre teams. Plus, it gives us a chance to remind Mexico of what happened when we played them in the 2002 World Cup: 2-0 Good Guys.
Of course, Europe is allotted like 15 or 16 World Cup slots (of 32), so this format isn't really feasible for them. But they could do something to weed out the weakest teams. Even Africa, which has about the same number of countries, has a preliminary round for that reason.
**
Euro 2004 has reached the quarterfinal stage. The European Championship is the planet's most prestigious soccer tournament outside the World Cup. Some of the continents biggest names were eliminated in the first round. Most notably Spain, Germany and Italy.
The elimination of Italy was particularly bitter for me since I support the Azzurri. Though the Italians underperforming in major tournaments has become almost as routine in recent years (save 2000) as Spain doing so. Though traditionally associated with a negative, hyper-defensive style called catenaccio that suffocates all creativity from the play, the Italians actually played some compelling, attacking soccer. They played quite a bit with a 4-3-3 formation (three forwards), which is a very offensive minded formation. They created a lot of chances but couldn't finish.
They have been overreliant of Christian Vieri, who was playing with an injury and was ineffective. Creative midfielder Francesco Totti was suspended for the team's last two games after spitting at an opponent in the opener. Alessandro Del Piero proved yet again why he's quite probably the most overrated player on the planet (and that includes even David Beckham, who can at least cross and take free kicks).
After the elimination, some players disgraced themselves by whining about an alleged fix in the Denmark-Sweden game (a draw in that game would've automatically eliminated Italy; it finished 2-2 on a late Swedish equalizer). Fixed games almost never finish 2-2 on a late equalizer. Plus, Denmark's "reward" is a quarterfinal match against the best team in the tournament so far, something they would've avoided if not for the alleged "fix."
The bottom line is that yet again, the Italians were done in by their inability to beat supposedly inferior teams (Sweden and Denmark). They play with such cavalier arrogance against supposedly inferior teams that they forget that you need to score goals in order to win. They scored a combined one goal in the games against Sweden and Denmark. They have no one to blame but themselves. Not the referee, not the Scandinavians, not penalties, not bad fortune. They didn't get the job done. Again.
With my team out, I have to choose other teams to support. So here are my thoughts about the remaining 8:
England: I can't support England on principle. Every time an English fan or paper refers to the sport in the United States, they always make some snide comment about how we Americans call it 'saw-ker' instead of football. Each time, the person doing it thinks their making the most creative "insult" in the world. They also ignore the fact that about half a dozen other countries in the world also refer to it the same way (never heard anyone make a similiar jab at "Saw-ker Australia"). There are other reasons I can't support England, but this is the most annoying one. I do support an English club team, but they only have one England senior international and he probably won't play in this tournament.
Portugal: Their so-called 'Golden Generation' has consistently failed to produce at the top level, save Euro 2000 (where they did well but disgraced themselves with their conduct in the semifinal). Their arrogance doesn't match their results so I can't support them. They lost to the USA at World Cup '02, which should discredit them in the eyes of soccer's intelligentsia. Though as hosts, I wouldn't rule them out. I'm not sure who to root for/against in their quarterfinal vs England. Maybe I should root for England, just to tease English fans a little. :-)
Greece: No team in the tournament has achieved so much with so little. You can't root against the minnows who work their butts off.
France: When they are clicking, they can play truly brilliant soccer. So far, they haven't really clicked this tournament. Zidane is still master class even at 34 (?) years of age. I hope they do click because when they do, it's breathtaking stuff.
Holland: See France, minus Zidane.
Sweden: (shrug) Nothing special here, save their brilliant striker Larsson.
Denmark: Scandinavian teams aren't known for playing compelling soccer, but all of the Denmark games have been good stuff. Even their 0-0 draw against Italy was filled with attacking soccer and lots of chances.
Czech Republic: The best team in the tournament so far, though ironic since they are not considered one of Europe's powerhouses. They are the only team to win all three 1st round games. That included a game with their 2nd string team where they beat the 1st team of Germany (the most successful team in European Championship history); despite already having qualified for the next round, they still played to win that game. You have to respect that. Not only are they undefeated but they've played some beautiful soccer in the process.
Quarterfinal comments: I'd love to be able to watch the Czech-Denmark quarterfinal. It could be the best match of the tournament. Though Portugal-England should be excellent too.
Ideal final from the perspective of a neutral: Czech Republic vs Holland.
2 comments:
"US-Mexico matches are hard fought affairs between two countries and two sets of fans who really dislike each other."
Do you really think so? I know the passion for the games is intense, but I never got the feeling that they did not like each other, I think there is some admiration and respect on both sides. Yes the Mexican fans root hard against the US, but I don't think US fans really "dislike" Mexico.
If anything I think the Mexican team almost gets a home crowd advantage in some US venues. This is why I favor playing all games at Foxboro in mid-November. If Lambeau Field were available on Jan. 1 then I'd pick that too.
I'm a big Larsson fan by the way, too bad he is leaving Celtic this year but I wish him well.
Bobo: Maybe not Mexico the country, but American soccer fans and players despise the Mexican team. It's been fueled by the fact that they despise and resent us. Not only do they object to the US for various political reasons, but now we're challenging their previous dominance of CONCACAF. For all the other things, they always used to have soccer over us. Now it's competitive. They were the undisputed kings, now they're not. It's the best rivalry in North America, hands down. Though USA and Mexico vs Costa Rica are pretty good too. Except we don't hate CR quite as much, even though they've had more success against us recently than Mexico.
"If anything I think the Mexican team almost gets a home crowd advantage in some US venues."
Yes. The US Federation may schedule home friendlies vs Mexico in Houston or Los Angeles to get a ton of revenue. But they'd never schedule a competitive match there. The last two home qualifiers vs Mexico were in central Ohio (in February) and Foxboro (in March). Do they have any big stadia in Alaska?
Post a Comment